Why do people hate the modern sonic design so much?

[Mr. Taxi]

First off, Meito: Did you hear that? It would appear that our conversation is getting so boring that it's already being considered complicated, serious business. I hope you are enjoying this as much as me, then. I'm having a good time talking to you, senhorita.

People who don't like the new games choose not to stop following either because they have a vested interest in seeing the franchise potentially prosper as a direct result of their continued protest, because they don't want to throw away something they vested their interest in for so long, or because of plain ol' nostalgia and an inability to let it go and find something which better interests them, which ultimately does come down to human nature. And as a result of this demand for Sonic, even as tied up in cynicism as it is, Sega responds with nostalgia-laden games and merchandise. They're not artificially creating the demand themselves or anything like that. The demand is there, but it's not completely logical.

Even if we follow your logic, we'll arrive the conclusion that it's SEGA's fault. Allow me to start by stating that there is no such thing as a fanbase. At least, not in the way we make it look like - a group of people who share the same interest and follow the merchandise closely. Sure, such people do exist - hell, this forum is full of them - but that doesn't mean we are concise as a group. And we wouldn't be even if we agreed on everything, since people don't like the same stuff for the same reasons. I'll never get tired of repeating this. So when a company releases a game, targeting it at its fanbase is... risky, at the very least. You are narrowing your possible and achievable market on purpose. First mistake.

Second of all, the fanbase, whatever is the definition we may have for it, is a diffuse group. We're not the Masonry or an other kind of secret society capable of joint actions. Even the guys who make fangames don't operate on a corporative fashion - they just form ad hoc groups and that' about it. If anyone is capable of a focused action, it's SEGA. If you are saying they have catered to the demands of a diffuse and broken group, you are telling me they have wasted their prerrogative of rationality as well. And a company shouldn't be irrational. At all. Yet, here you are saying each game of theirs has been a mechanical response to the last one's reception. That can never work out right. It's only prone to generate more nostalgia.

I don't wish to particularly state that any of this- much less your opinions- as false so much as I wish to paint it as a feeling that is fundamentally, at the same time, irrational on its own, which in turn makes it warrant dismissal from conversation unless there's further underlying justification rooted in some form of objectivity or rationality (e.g., "Classic Sonic ideals should return because the gameplay would improve for x, y, and z reasons," not "Classic Sonic ideals should return because anything different sucks.").

For all that matters, it's not so much a matter of "sucking" than it's a matter of "it's not what I want". It's easier to say it sucks anyway, but it's too vague a word to describe anything. Oh, by the way, that is the case with the word "better", too. If you ask each one of the people who like the Classic design better, each one will give a different answer based on a different reality. But let my next point compliment what I have to say here:

You literally say that it doesn't matter how detached from reality the nostalgia is, but what matters is that a person is dissatisfied of the changes they believe have happened to something of which they had this previous idea of. But that's the thing: It does matter! For one's nostalgia to be so detached from reality as to be fundamentally delusional in some respects matters heavily because it's actually having a direct effect on the way the franchise is being handled as Sega caters directly to that nostalgia! Sonic 4, Generations, the dismal storytelling, the shunning of the extended cast simply because they were in newer titles; these games and changes do not exist in a vacuum but partly as a result of illicit and ill-thought criticism rooted in a place of nostalgia, a feeling which we already both agree is inherently irrational anyway. You don't see how this can be a bad thing?

Nope. Because I'm not the one to judge the emotional attachment of others. Games leave their mark through emotions they force to flourish in the player and there's nothing rational about that. More than that, it's what's beautiful about videogames. What Ragnablood is saying about the childhood makes sense, although it's an incomplete thought as you said. Because the game is associated with something else and this association is then recognized as pleasant. That's why, irrational as can be, the nostalgia one feels towards - say - Sonic CD because - say - that's the game one used to play while eating nuggets as a child is still valid. And the costumer will not be disappointed for as long as the games can emulate that feeling. Once again, it's a matter of consistency. To each his/her own and it's not Sonic Team's job to make a Frankestein out of their games, but to mantain a consistent feeling throughout them. If Sonic's design had changed, but the general art style and that of environments hadn't, I can assure you much fewer people would complain.

That, and attachment is as irrational as nostalgia. I mean, treating Sonic as something to be worshipped and followed no matter what. If one is dangerous, so is the other - but if such behaviours are dangerous or not, it's the devs' decision. Their thought process, I believe, is perfectly rational on this matter, but counter-productive in the long run. Hey, you are even illustrating this one point.

I was responding moreso to your statement that "Classic Sonic is there, but not quite." I agree there's elements of the older games in the newer ones that don't function exactly the same. However I wasn't referring to the overall concept of classic Sonic, but only the actual design of the character (which is ultimately what this topic is about,) and in that vain Classic Sonic is very much all there, all the time, no matter where I go, an ever-omnipresent rabid capuchin monkey scratching at the back of my neck as it continues attempting to strangle me.... That isn't melodramatic, isn't it?

Not at all. I feel the same about the homing attack.

The happiest moments of my life in regards to entertainment aren't relegated to my childhood. The feelings of fun and engagement I had and still maintain for Unleashed are the same ones I had for Adventure which in turn are the same ones I had for Sonic 3. My heightened ability to criticize art may not lend itself to complete bliss if I feel something is off enough with a game to warrant notice, but I had this capability even when I was younger to some degree; I simply didn't enjoy every game I played. At the same time, the ability to look at art more objectively also allows me to enjoy things on a level I could not possibly experience beforehand, which in turn makes me even more emotional and attached to the things I like now (for example, my 5 year old self didn't give a shit that Mufasa died; now I can't watch that stupid scene without tearing up because I can rationalize the scene better). So I personally don't think I'm less happy with entertainment than I used to be.

I know, right? My best gaming experiences are from the last couple years. Katawa Shoujo, Okami, Fate/Stay Night etc. I can no longer enjoy a Sonic game that much, I'm afraid, just because I can't be that irrational about a Sonic game.

When did this thread turn into Psychology?

Not trying to back seat moderate but this thread is starting to sound like a really complicated argument.

Either you like Classic Sonic or you don't.

Don't go there. Even a discussion about the homing attack can involve Pavlov.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Palas

[Shawshank Redemption]

This thread is honestly ridiculous and barely intelligible with the walls of text. Palas isn't the only one who seems to have a limited grasp of the english language. It truly is a cesspool of haters dissing old school fans for no reason.

What some of you guys don't understand are the principles of classic cartoon aesthetics, and why the original designs work in a timeless fashion. Throwing out the nostalgia card for things you don't understand is pretty lazy.

When you grow up drawing bad shonen-inspired fan art and see Sega followed your lead, of course your going to hate everything that came before. But it's way easier to attack others for their preference as opposed to thinking things through.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[Mr. Taxi]

This thread is honestly ridiculous and barely intelligible with the walls of text. Palas isn't the only one who seems to have a limited grasp of the english language. It truly is a cesspool of haters dissing old school fans for no reason.

What some of you guys don't understand are the principles of classic cartoon aesthetics, and why the original designs work in a timeless fashion. Throwing out the nostalgia card for things you don't understand is pretty lazy.

When you grow up drawing bad shonen-inspired fan art and see Sega followed your lead, of course your going to hate everything that came before. But it's way easier to attack others for their preference as opposed to thinking things through.

No need to do with them what they do to you, if that's the case. Be magnanimous and kindly explain your point. I do agree that classic cartoon aesthetics are dandy and all, but the thought of there being things that are inherently and flawlessly appealing no matter the circumstances is somewhat unsettling. I prefer to think things through human perception. You're more of a Plato guy than an advocate of Aristotle, isn't that correct?

Edited October 27, 2012 by Palas

[Nepenthe]

First off, Meito: Did you hear that? It would appear that our conversation is getting so boring that it's already being considered complicated, serious business. I hope you are enjoying this as much as me, then. I'm having a good time talking to you, senhorita.

Complicated? Fah, this isn't complicated. Completely tangential to the subject at hand, but I don't think we're in peer-reviewed paper territory or anything. =P Anyway, I'm enjoying the conversation as well, so let's get the ball rolling:

Even if we follow your logic, we'll arrive the conclusion that it's SEGA's fault. Allow me to start by stating that there is no such thing as a fanbase. At least, not in the way we make it look like - a group of people who share the same interest and follow the merchandise closely. Sure, such people do exist - hell, this forum is full of them - but that doesn't mean we are concise as a group. And we wouldn't be even if we agreed on everything, since people don't like the same stuff for the same reasons. I'll never get tired of repeating this. So when a company releases a game, targeting it at its fanbase is... risky, at the very least. You are narrowing your possible and achievable market on purpose. First mistake.

Second of all, the fanbase, whatever is the definition we may have for it, is a diffuse group. We're not the Masonry or an other kind of secret society capable of joint actions. Even the guys who make fangames don't operate on a corporative fashion - they just form ad hoc groups and that' about it. If anyone is capable of a focused action, it's SEGA. If you are saying they have catered to the demands of a diffuse and broken group, you are telling me they have wasted their prerrogative of rationality as well. And a company shouldn't be irrational. At all. Yet, here you are saying each game of theirs has been a mechanical response to the last one's reception. That can never work out right. It's only prone to generate more nostalgia.

Getting the fans on board any project is never a mistake because it's a free base guaranteed to keep buying your products; to completely alienate them would be betting on the chance you'll have the next Angry Birds that reaches across a wide-enough range of demographics to generate actual profit. This isn't the wise course of action to take nor is it rational, thus it's not the business model the industry relies on.

I'm also not sure how you've extrapolated any of the things you said in the second paragraph from the quoted portion. Classic fans aren't such a broken group that they're impossible to target (if nothing else, they're the Sonic demographic with the most solidarity), otherwise there'd be no demand to discern. Ultimately you're now implying Sega's marketing department has either done no research or has seen no real "classic fan" market, yet has made Classic Sonic products anyway. That's silly; there's clearly a consistent demand for Classic Sonic regardless of whether or not everyone agrees on every little thing and Sega's caters to it anyway, and I'd say pretty they're successful because they keep getting people reportedly unhappy with the franchise to keep buying stuff from it.

Finally, I'm not sure how any of this supports the idea that a person using their own free will to engage in a product they have disliked for years is the company's fault. Your decision to engage or disengage is ultimately yours to make, so to lay the blame at the hands of company for this is nonsensical.

Nope. Because I'm not the one to judge the emotional attachment of others. Games leave their mark through emotions they force to flourish in the player and there's nothing rational about that. More than that, it's what's beautiful about videogames. What Ragnablood is saying about the childhood makes sense, although it's an incomplete thought as you said. Because the game is associated with something else and this association is then recognized as pleasant. That's why, irrational as can be, the nostalgia one feels towards - say - Sonic CD because - say - that's the game one used to play while eating nuggets as a child is still valid. And the costumer will not be disappointed for as long as the games can emulate that feeling. Once again, it's a matter of consistency. To each his/her own and it's not Sonic Team's job to make a Frankestein out of their games, but to mantain a consistent feeling throughout them. If Sonic's design had changed, but the general art style and that of environments hadn't, I can assure you much fewer people would complain.

I think you're missing the major overall point I'm making on nostalgia, that being: One's nostalgia doesn't exist in a vacuum the moment they begin using it as a basis for advocating change to a franchise millions of others enjoy- millions of others who may not share their nostalgia or do so to the same extent- to suit their own selfish whims. Whatever reasons justify your nostalgia for something and nostalgia itself do not take precedence over my preferences (nor do mine take precedence over yours), and subsequently I'm perfectly free to ask anyone to explain why their ideas about what's proper for the franchise are better than mine and why I should go along with them.

So if you enjoy Sonic CD due in part to nostalgia that's fine; I don't care what anyone enjoys or why they enjoy it. But the moment you begin dictating that CD should be the basis of the franchise when I don't enjoy the game is when I totally have the right to judge your nostalgic arguments and dismiss them if I believe they're bad ideas, because the fact remains you are then attempting to dictate what I should be able to engage in with this series.

I know, right? My best gaming experiences are from the last couple years. Katawa Shoujo, Okami, Fate/Stay Night etc. I can no longer enjoy a Sonic game that much, I'm afraid, just because I can't be that irrational about a Sonic game.

Enjoying a current Sonic game isn't anymore irrational than enjoying an old one. xP

What some of you guys don't understand are the principles of classic cartoon aesthetics, and why the original designs work in a timeless fashion. Throwing out the nostalgia card for things you don't understand is pretty lazy.

When you grow up drawing bad shonen-inspired fan art and see Sega followed your lead, of course your going to hate everything that came before. But it's way easier to attack others for their preference as opposed to thinking things through.

I'm a 2D and 3D character animator in training as well as someone who started with Sonic 1 on the Genesis; How about we not attack stereotypes with stereotypes? If you believe you're right about what I'm assuming is the implication from your statements that the modern designs are not timeless, you can surely explain to us why so without resorting to this kind of condescending attitude.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Meito Anizawa

[Shawshank Redemption]

No need to do with them what they do to you, if that's the case. Be magnanimous and kindly explain your point. I do agree that classic cartoon aesthetics are dandy and all, but the thought of there being things that are inherently and flawlessly appealing no matter the circumstances is somewhat unsettling. I prefer to think things through human perception. You're more of a Plato guy than an advocate of Aristotle, isn't that correct?

I do find Plato to be a more interesting read with bigger ideas, even if he was wrong about many things and Aristotle corrected him.

Without a doubt humans find some aesthetic qualities univerally more appealing than others, it's our very nature.

There is no rhyme or reason with Sonic fans however.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[Mr. Taxi]

Getting the fans on board any project is never a mistake because it's a free base guaranteed to keep buying your products; to completely alienate them would be betting on the chance you'll have the next Angry Birds that reaches across a wide-enough range of demographics to generate actual profit. This isn't the wise course of action to take nor is it rational, thus it's not the business model the industry relies on.

But that was the course of action first employed by SEGA. And it worked wonders. I, for one, find having a target demographic far less effective than having a target media. It is perfectly rational to focus your efforts on being a game for those who want to play games instead of a certain subgroup. Of course, there are some things you have to sacrifice if you want to have such an universal appeal, but since I believe that is what he was made for, I also believe that's his vocation. And a fanbase is not so much of a guaranteed source of profit. They will most likely buy the game, yes, but the more you make a game that is sure to appeal to them, the more the game becomes fanservice and, thus, unreachable to the general public. To me, it seems far more profitable to rely on the general public, since that doesn't necessarily alienate your fanbase.

I'm also not sure how you've extrapolated any of the things you said in the second paragraph from the quoted portion. Classic fans aren't such a broken group that they're impossible to target (if nothing else, they're the Sonic demographic with the most solidarity), otherwise there'd be no demand to discern. Ultimately you're now implying Sega's marketing department has either done no research or has seen no real "classic fan" market, yet has made Classic Sonic products anyway. That's silly; there's clearly a consistent demand for Classic Sonic regardless of whether or not everyone agrees on every little thing and Sega's caters to it anyway, and I'd say pretty they're successful because they keep getting people reportedly unhappy with the franchise to keep buying stuff from it.

No, it's the other way around: they know exactly what they are on about. They know what elements these people want, but they also know this is too small a market to rely on, so they need to shove in elements that are sure to bring other segments of the fanbase. It works, doesn't it? That's what 2.5D is ultimately about. People can be unhappy all they want about 2/3 of the game. If they buy it because of the likeable 1/3, it's fine for them. Well, the problem is the long run and we are seeing the effects of this right here, right now. Having 30 people buy a game for different one-thirds of it seems better than having 10 people completely enjoy all aspects of a game, but time is wise and shows that Mass Effect has had a bigger impact on culture and industry than Sonic. And don't try to bring up tendencies. We all know Mass Effect is known for, well, its butterfly effects and not the shooting sequences.

Finally, I'm not sure how any of this supports the idea that a person using their own free will to engage in a product they have disliked for years is the company's fault. Your decision to engage or disengage is ultimately yours to make, so to lay the blame at the hands of company for this is nonsensical.

To put it simply, it's the small chunks of salmon mixed in the rucola salad (please, tell me you don't like rucola. Otherwise, just play along). They have you eat the rucola just to earn the small bits of salmon that occasionally come by and, even though it was marketed as being a salmon salad, it's not quite. But they still look after it, since it does have some salmon after all. And it's not a coincidence that the dish is like this, since the restaurant happens to have a lot of rucola-loving supporters that can't be forsaken.

I think you're missing the major overall point I'm making on nostalgia, that being: One's nostalgia doesn't exist in a vacuum the moment they begin using it as a basis for advocating change to a franchise millions of others enjoy- millions of others who may not share their nostalgia or do so to the same extent- to suit their own selfish whims. Whatever reasons justify your nostalgia for something and nostalgia itself do not take precedence over my preferences (nor do mine take precedence over yours), and subsequently I'm perfectly free to ask anyone to explain why their ideas about what's proper for the franchise are better than mine and why I should go along with them.

So if you enjoy Sonic CD due in part to nostalgia that's fine; I don't care what anyone enjoys or why they enjoy it. But the moment you begin dictating that CD should be the basis of the franchise when I don't enjoy the game is when I totally have the right to judge your nostalgic arguments and dismiss them if I believe they're bad ideas, because the fact remains you are then attempting to dictate what I should be able to engage in with this series.

Well, that is true. You can't speak my preferences as truth just because they are my preferences. Likewise, no one can judge my preferences. So if someone asked what design I like and I said "the classic one because it's the costume my father was using on my 5th birthday and I don't care for the modern one because it doesn't bring me such memories", it would be not only rude, but stupid for anyone to say "HEY! That's not a valid reason not to like the modern design!"

Enjoying a current Sonic game isn't anymore irrational than enjoying an old one. xP

True. I used to find nothing but pleasure in playing Sonic 1 for Master System. I still enjoy it, but it's not the same kind of pure, childish pleasure.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Palas

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

What some of you guys don't understand are the principles of classic cartoon aesthetics, and why the original designs work in a timeless fashion. Throwing out the nostalgia card for things you don't understand is pretty lazy.

Calling us lazy for pointing out the nostalgia in the first place and how we don't understand the "timeless fashion" of Classic Sonic reeks of denialism and fanboyism. Nostalgia itself isn't a bad thing, and it's ridiculous the deny that nostalgia has a role in why people see the value in Classic Sonic, but if you're going to criticize us as lazy, how about you actually read the posts instead of berating them as "unintelligible"? It makes you far more an asshole than someone who's opinions are worth considering.

When you grow up drawing bad shonen-inspired fan art and see Sega followed your lead, of course your going to hate everything that came before. But it's way easier to attack others for their preference as opposed to thinking things through.

Ya know, for someone sick of people "attacking others for their preference" you certainly aren't holding any moral high ground doing the same damn thing.

Edited October 27, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[tenchibr]

"Why do people hate the modern Sonic design so much?" The answer to that one question is simple: Under the pretense that by "people", it's really meant to be "SOME people", well, some people prefer the older style because it's the one they grew up with (yes, I say it is because of nostalgia).

The same nostalgia that people have of the original Ninja Turtles and can't stand the reboots. I have never watched the old cartoon, and after hearing millions of people saying "Oh boy, do I miss that show", I checked out the first episode and... I think it's shit.

Transformers, same thing. Hell, even AoStH/Sonic SatAM. They all were good for the time, but we live in a world today that's much smarter, much more cunning.

I will be honest: at first I was confused about Modern Sonic when I first saw him, but I can say with certainty, that the Sonic we have today versus Classic can sustain itself over time, while Classic Sonic wouldn't be able to. And before you say Mario did, I refuse to accept that Sonic and Mario are the same.

Nintendo is all about one thing: repetition. Mario tells the same story of saving Peach from Bowser in a million ways; Link works with the Legendary Zelda against Ganondorf in a million ways; and Pokemon has you catching them all while becoming a Pokemon master in a million ways.

Sonic's ORIGINAL concept was to defeat Eggman in a million ways; and then Sonic Team went and started changing things around, and now Eggman is not the only threat. But the lament of the fanboys beg SEGA to try to bring the old story back, and for those who liked this comeback, good for you.

I do enjoy Colors' story, but I think Generations was a missed opportunity. But even if the way Sonic Adventure's story was told was lousy at times, it shined in ways none of the other games did. The variety of characters, and watching their paths cross and exchange dialogues... I am starting to go offtopic now, but I feel like it's all related, because without a talking Sonic, there wouldn't be as deep of a story.

I believe Sonic 3 & Knuckles has the overall best story, but what helped it was how easy it was to be told, how simple it was. In today's world, modern games demand modern ways of storytelling. And a chubby, short hedgehog would not be taken seriously in a world surrounded by chaos and despair, cries of people and children, destruction all around. You needed a more human-like hedgehog to not only be taken seriously by its own world, but also to relate to.

Otherwise, Classic Sonic in Sonic Adventure would have turned out to be like Astro Boy in a Transformers Michael Bay movie as Optimus Prime.

Edit: And I shouldn't have to mention this, but here it goes: THIS IS MY OPINION. You DON'T have to AGREE with me, but by the same token, you DON'T have to try to CHANGE what I think either. If you like any non-Sonic examples I mentioned and feel like I offended you, I apologize because that was not my intent.

Edited October 27, 2012 by tenchibr

[Milo]

Every time I see someone complain about the modern design, I just think to myself...

... you could've had it SO MUCH worse.

To be fair, at least Spyro still looks like Spyro....sorta. It could had ended up going on the other side of the spectrum and made Sonic's redesign something like this:

Anyway, I more or less have to agree with what Autosaver said regarding people having problems with what the design represents, not the design itself. And even then, it wasn't really a huge issue until Sonic 4 reared it's head.

[HippyAmy]

Hello new here. I grew up with classic Sonic and Sonic 1 and Sonic 2 and I don't really see the hate towards the newer Sonic design.

The newer Sonic gives him character and personality. Sonic now thinks and feels and has emotions and ideals. We can see that Sonic is a optimistic character that doesn't like sadness and prefers freedom and adventure/

In the older Sonic games it was unclear what Sonic was like though the old cartoons said that he had smartass attitude, but that's not canon. We now know what Sonic is really like, what Tails is really like, Knuckles, Amy Rose and the others.

It's like you don't want Sonic to grow up per say and develop and get a bigger personality that he did before ?

Edited October 27, 2012 by HippyAmy

[smogfog]

Ok, you asked for it. The reasons why a hate Modern Sonic design are...

I just wanted to talk about one of the many trivial things that has divided the fanbase since about 1998.

No, damn it! No! The Adventure design is NOT Modern! It's just Adventure, it's on its own!

Edited October 27, 2012 by crystallize

[Salamander]

I don't really think they look any more different than the oft-cited classic vs. modern Mario comparison, although it certainly helps that Mario's design went through a kind of spectrum of change. But then again, so did Sonic, more than people admit. He certainly didn't look the same in Sonic 3 as he did in Sonic 2. Frankly, I think the so-called "redesign" is a bit of a red herring - nothing more than an evolution along the very same lines of what they'd already been doing over the years in the classics.

[Mr. Taxi]

I don't really think they look any more different than the oft-cited classic vs. modern Mario comparison, although it certainly helps that Mario's design went through a kind of spectrum of change. But then again, so did Sonic, more than people admit. He certainly didn't look the same in Sonic 3 as he did in Sonic 2. Frankly, I think the so-called "redesign" is a bit of a red herring - nothing more than an evolution along the very same lines of what they'd already been doing over the years in the classics.

Good point, but Naka himself said it was a redesign, with all that this implies. He said he wanted it that way and used Mickey as an example of a character that underwent multiple redesigns over the years.

[Faseeh]

No, damn it! No! The Adventure design is NOT Modern! It's just Adventure, it's on its own!

It is. Well, the basic design is. You know what, all of them are the same thing. I never understood the hate for either. It's just change. Get on with it. He is still the same guy in the heart and that's all that matters, right? RIGHT?

[sonfan1984]

No, damn it! No! The Adventure design is NOT Modern! It's just Adventure, it's on its own!

I dunno if you're being serious but what makes the Adventure designs (and pretty much everyone else) different from how they look today?

Edited October 27, 2012 by sonfan1984

[Komodin]

I dunno if you're being serious but what makes the Adventure designs (and pretty much everyone else) different from how they look today?

The spaghetti limbs, I guess?

[Briraka]

To be fair, at least Spyro still looks like Spyro....sorta. It could had ended up going on the other side of the spectrum and made Sonic's redesign something like this:

... they did try though...

NEVER AGAIN.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Briraka

[Mr. Taxi]

I dunno if you're being serious but what makes the Adventure designs (and pretty much everyone else) different from how they look today?

The difference may not be so striking in the design itself, but in how they fit in the environments. It's already different enough. You know, more or less like this.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Palas

[- Eternal Paradox -]

I dunno if you're being serious but what makes the Adventure designs (and pretty much everyone else) different from how they look today?

'Hem. Sorry to answer a question aimed at somebody else, but the difference is mainly this:

This is Adventure Sonic. It lasts from Sonic Adventure through to Shadow the Hedgehog. They might use different models, but this is the artwork they're basing the model off-of.

Then '06/Riders rolled along

The similarity between the two is quite striking, I'd say that the Rider's model is pretty much the same just lower poly (And different shoes). This model of Sonic is much taller and lankier, and is usually associated the poor quality of SONIC THE HEDGEHOG ('06).

And now, we reach our final "Modern" Sonic.

This design actually takes elements from the previous designs.

- Sonic is taller than before ('06)

-His ears and body are now more rounded (Classic).

- Shorter spines, not as short as Classic, but shorter than '06 (and possibly adventure).

- Pointy-er shoes (previous incarnations had them rounder)

- Rounder, oval eyes (others (such as '06/Rush had them longer, making him look less cute)

- Sonic's socks are bigger than his glove/rim.

I'm not entirely sure when this designed debuted, SATSR might of used this, or it could've just use a HD adventure Sonic. However, I know Sonic was redesigned for Unleashed (Read about it here), and a woman named Sachiko Kawamura was involved.

Hope this helps clear things up.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Paradox

[sonfan1984]

So if they draw Modern Sonic in 2D form he'll still look the same as he does in his Adventure artwork. Almost every game between Adventure and Unleashed they've made some tweaks and redesign him. Unleashed onwards they finalized it.

Edited October 27, 2012 by sonfan1984

[Mr. Taxi]

So if they draw Modern Sonic in 2D form he'll still look the same as he does in his Adventure artwork. Almost every game between Adventure and Unleashed they've made some tweaks and redesign him. Unleashed onwards they finalized it.

There were tweaks in the classic design from Sonic 1 to Sonic & Knuckles, but everyone just seems to group them together and consider, for all that matters, as one design. Why doesn't that happen with Adventure-Modern design?

[sonfan1984]

Why doesn't that happen with Adventure-Modern design?

I think it's still one design but it looks different in almost every game before Unleashed.

[Mr. Taxi]

I think it's still one design but it looks different in almost every game before Unleashed.

I'm asking you why do you think someone else would think different from you.

[Abominal SnowTaz]

Uh....wow. After reading the last few pages here, I feel educated. Damn Palas .

[- Eternal Paradox -]

There were tweaks in the classic design from Sonic 1 to Sonic & Knuckles, but everyone just seems to group them together and consider, for all that matters, as one design. Why doesn't that happen with Adventure-Modern design?

It does. In fact, it seems to happens more frequently, since the designs are incredibly similar (apart from 06/riders, which sticks out like a sore thumb). Sonic 2 and Sonic CD's sprite set was incredibly similar to Sonic's orginal sprites, so not many people noticed/cared. Sonic 3/Knuckles updated the sprite sheet, and it's kind of noticable. Aside from that no-one seems to be that bothered about any of the other games from that era, and if we're talking about publicity art then it depends on the artist.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Paradox